Chang is over-rated cause he is american. He is even in the hall of fame and Kafelnikov isn't being clearly a better player.

Click to expand...

Chang may be overrated in some circles but he isnt overrated on that list. Can you name alot (or any) players who werent ranked above him by the TC list who should have been? Even Kafelnikov and Roddick (who I dont even agree with you are superior to Chang or Murray and who I think you drastically overrate, especialy Kafelnikov the worst 2 slam winner in history by far excluding Kriek) were ranked above him. It is pretty safe to say Chang is at worst a top 70 player all time, and Murray is definitely better than Chang. Sorry I think the idea Murray isnt a top 100 mens player of all time is laughable at this point, even for those who think he is weaker than people like Roddick and Kafelnikov, those people themselves are way inside the top 100 so it doesnt matter.

Chang may be overrated in some circles but he isnt overrated on that list. Can you name alot (or any) players who werent ranked above him by the TC list who should have been? Even Kafelnikov and Roddick (who I dont even agree with you are superior to Chang or Murray and who I think you drastically overrate, especialy Kafelnikov the worst 2 slam winner in history by far excluding Kriek) were ranked above him. It is pretty safe to say Chang is at worst a top 70 player all time, and Murray is definitely better than Chang. Sorry I think the idea Murray isnt a top 100 mens player of all time is laughable at this point, even for those who think he is weaker than people like Roddick and Kafelnikov, those people themselves are way inside the top 100 so it doesnt matter.

Click to expand...

Hatred is blind. I wouldn't even try to argue with him, he is known for not liking Murray. Fate of using the same username on every website.

Even if Murray retired tomorrow he should still be included, he is in IMO the best one-slam-wonder there is. I guess you could make a case for Roddick, because he won more titles and was ranked #1, but then again, does that really make up for 3 Masters titles, a worse winning percentage and H2H records against all of his main rivals?

Okay, by the standards of professional tennis in general Roddick was consistent, but not in comparison to Murray. If I'm not mistaken Roddick never made more than 2 consecutive GS semi finals. Both Murray/Rod worked better on fast courts, but Murray has been much more successful at the French. He has a better direct HTH, and a WAY better HTH vs Federer.

Click to expand...

I agree with most of your post, but I don't think comparing H2H's with one player (let alone Federer) adds much to the argument. Granted Murray is a better matchup for Federer than Roddick ever was, but Roddick faced prime Federer a lot more than Murray ever did. True, Federer's prime probably truly ended in 2010, but his best years in terms of playing ability were easily 2004-2007. Murray won the match in Cincinnati in 2006 yes, but the point still stands.

Besides, I could say that Roddick has a winning H2H with Djokovic and Murray doesn't. Both are in their primes I think you would agree, and it could be argued that Murray has blown some of the most recent matches he's had with Djokovic.

You could make a case for both Murray and Roddick that had they not been born earlier and coincided with Federer at his peak, Nadal and Djokovic, both Andy's would have collected more slams already.

These 2 could have been mulitple Wimbledon champions if it wasn't for the above guys.

The fact that Murray has had to win his slam the hard way in the Federer/Nadal/Djokovic era is enough to include him in the top 100 already.

Click to expand...

Who cares that he won in a tough era. History wants cold facts not opinions and hearsay. Truth is Murray lucked out in unplayably windy conditions. Murray is not even close to Noah or Gaudio yet because they won their slams in decent conditions at least.

Who cares that he won in a tough era. History wants cold facts not opinions and hearsay. Truth is Murray lucked out in unplayably windy conditions. Murray is not even close to Noah or Gaudio yet because they won their slams in decent conditions at least.

Who cares that he won in a tough era. History wants cold facts not opinions and hearsay. Truth is Murray lucked out in unplayably windy conditions. Murray is not even close to Noah or Gaudio yet because they won their slams in decent conditions at least.

Click to expand...

I think you've contradicted yourself by saying that the cold hard facts is the most important way of judging player's careers. Murray won USO fair and square so if other players couldn't adjust to the conditions then tough.

It doesn't matter how much you argue that it was a 'fluke' slam. He's got one in the bag and will most likely add more in the coming years.

I think you've contradicted yourself by saying that the cold hard facts is the most important way of judging player's careers. Murray won USO fair and square so if other players couldn't adjust to the conditions then tough.

It doesn't matter how much you argue that it was a 'fluke' slam. He's got one in the bag and will most likely add more in the coming years.

I think you've contradicted yourself by saying that the cold hard facts is the most important way of judging player's careers. Murray won USO fair and square so if other players couldn't adjust to the conditions then tough.

It doesn't matter how much you argue that it was a 'fluke' slam. He's got one in the bag and will most likely add more in the coming years.

Click to expand...

I don't think we've met before but I'll save you some time: there is no use reasoning with me, my hatred for Murray is blind and devoid of concrete reason which is not related to his attempt to belittle and disparage the Engand football team and his horrible slimy schoolboy behaviour on court.

Murray should have been able to do it by now if hes truly supposed to be the "next big thing".. Nadal, Djoker have done it on numerous occasions.

Click to expand...

And spending a little while at #1 doesn't mean he has to be the "next big thing". He's already the next big thing in Britian anyway, as he's a national icon over there. If he spends over 13 weeks at #1, he will be in the top 100 for certain.

Murray should have been able to do it by now if hes truly supposed to be the "next big thing".. Nadal, Djoker have done it on numerous occasions.

Click to expand...

They only played 3 slam matches and all were finals. Djokovic has never beaten Federer in a slam final either. In fact in 2 of those 3 slams, Djokovic lost to Federer as well and in the 3rd one (AO 2010) he lost to Tsonga who Federer then went on to beat with ease. It's not like Murray had that many opportunities. In fact only 2 men ever beat Federer in a slam final: Nadal and Del Potro.

They only played 3 slam matches and all were finals. Djokovic has never beaten Federer in a slam final either. In fact in 2 of those 3 slams, Djokovic lost to Federer as well and in the 3rd one (AO 2010) he lost to Tsonga who Federer then went on to beat with ease. It's not like Murray had that many opportunities. In fact only 2 men ever beat Federer in a slam final: Nadal and Del Potro.

Chang may be overrated in some circles but he isnt overrated on that list. Can you name alot (or any) players who werent ranked above him by the TC list who should have been? Even Kafelnikov and Roddick (who I dont even agree with you are superior to Chang or Murray and who I think you drastically overrate, especialy Kafelnikov the worst 2 slam winner in history by far excluding Kriek) were ranked above him. It is pretty safe to say Chang is at worst a top 70 player all time, and Murray is definitely better than Chang. Sorry I think the idea Murray isnt a top 100 mens player of all time is laughable at this point, even for those who think he is weaker than people like Roddick and Kafelnikov, those people themselves are way inside the top 100 so it doesnt matter.

Click to expand...

Chang's ranked fine there. But he is not Hall of Fame material imo.

And of course Murray is TOP 100, what I said is he doesn't come close to the TOP 20. I never said he shouldn't be included, he is probably around 50 or so. But people saying he is TOP 10 is laughable.

Kafelnikov maybe the worst 2 slam winner but neither Chang, Roddick and Murray have 2 slams. Besides that he was #1 and an olympic gold winner. He is ahead of the other 3 in terms of achievements. If Murray wins another slam and has at least a week at number 1 his career will be far superior to the other 3. He is already ahead of Chang and would be ahead of Roddick if it wasn't for Roddick being 1 in 2003.

At the moment is probably something like this imo:

1-Kafelnikov
2-Roddick/Murray (Is till give Roddick the edge because of being #1)
4-Chang

And of course Murray is TOP 100, what I said is he doesn't come close to the TOP 20. I never said he shouldn't be included, he is probably around 50 or so. But people saying he is TOP 10 is laughable.

Kafelnikov maybe the worst 2 slam winner but neither Chang, Roddick and Murray have 2 slams. Besides that he was #1 and an olympic gold winner. He is ahead of the other 3 in terms of achievements. If Murray wins another slam and has at least a week at number 1 his career will be far superior to the other 3. He is already ahead of Chang and would be ahead of Roddick if it wasn't for Roddick being 1 in 2003.

At the moment is probably something like this imo:

1-Kafelnikov
2-Roddick/Murray (Is till give Roddick the edge because of being #1)
4-Chang

At the end of his career Murray will be the better player of those 4.

Click to expand...

Chang or Roddick probably isn't HOF material if they were strict on who they induct but since they aren't. Chang deserves to be in there. Youngest Slam champion ever, spent quite a long time at the top, and won quite a few titles winning 34 in all. . He had fantastic results all around the world tour during his career.

Chang or Roddick probably isn't HOF material if they were strict on who they induct but since they aren't. Chang deserves to be in there. Youngest Slam champion ever, spent quite a long time at the top, and won quite a few titles winning 34 in all. . He had fantastic results all around the world tour during his career.

Click to expand...

Yeah, he had a great career for sure, and he accomplished what seems to be needed to be in the HOF as it is now, but they should be stricter in my opinion.

They only played 3 slam matches and all were finals. Djokovic has never beaten Federer in a slam final either. In fact in 2 of those 3 slams, Djokovic lost to Federer as well and in the 3rd one (AO 2010) he lost to Tsonga who Federer then went on to beat with ease. It's not like Murray had that many opportunities. In fact only 2 men ever beat Federer in a slam final: Nadal and Del Potro.

Click to expand...

I agree that Murray hasn't played enough slam matches vs Federer to really compare with Djokovic, but I don't think the difference between final and semis makes any difference really. Plus saying that Murray has not had that many opportunities is right, but Djokovic with one slam final vs Federer which happened to be his first has has even less opportunity to beat Fed in a slam final than Muray has had to beat him in a slam.